The military officer in charge of providing help for injured soldiers says they are being asked for their own good to sign a form governing what they can and can’t say in public.

In September, the Citizen reported that the Canadian Forces were requiring physically and mentally wounded soldiers to sign a form agreeing they won’t criticize senior officers on social media outlets or discourage others in uniform with their comments on sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

But Col. Gerry Blais, director of casualty support management and the Joint Personnel Support Unit, told MPs at the Commons defence committee that the form was for the benefit of the wounded. “The form is there more for the protection of the individuals because unfortunately there are occasions where people, especially when they are suffering from mental health issues, will make comments or become involved in discussions that, later on in the full light of day, they would probably prefer that they had not been involved,” he explained Tuesday.

Under questioning from Liberal MP Joyce Murray, however, Blais also said the “guidance” is aimed at what soldiers might say to the news media.

Some of the wounded and their families have been highly vocal about the failure of the military leadership and Conservative government to help those injured serving their country. Defence insiders say there is intense pressure from the government to limit such bad publicity.

The form, given to military personnel who are transferred to the Joint Personnel Support Unit, was leaked to the Citizen by military members upset with what they saw as a threat against speaking out about their concerns.

The Joint Personnel Support Unit, or JPSU, was created to help the injured. It oversees support centres across the country.

In August, the Citizen revealed the organization was rife with problems, with soldiers and staff warning about the lack of resources and raising concerns some of the support centres were dysfunctional.

Blais told MPs the document is not designed to stifle criticism.

But the form notes that those in JPSU are not to disclose “your views on any military subject.” The military personnel in the unit were also told not to “write anything that might discourage others or make them dissatisfied with their conditions or their employment.”

The form, introduced in March 2013, noted that military personnel in JPSU would be held responsible for not only the content they post on social media outlets but also the content of sites of their friends which they have “tagged.”

Retired air force officer Sean Bruyea, a high-profile critic of how the military and government treats wounded veterans, described the form as “right out of something you would see during the Soviet era.”

Blais acknowledged to Murray that some members of JPSU have refused to sign the document. He said no one has faced disciplinary action for that but added, “We have spoken with some.”

“It is not restrictive, per se,” Blais said of the form. “It is guidance.”

Other parts of the military are also trying to crack down on information that could be embarrassing to the government. Canadian Army commander, Lt.-Gen. Marquis Hainse recently warned troops he would punish those found to be speaking to the news media without permission.

Hainse said information being leaked to reporters about the army was hurting the organization’s credibility.

Over the last year, documents have been leaked outlining how Conservative government budget cuts are hurting military readiness and impacting on soldiers’ families.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/wounded-soldiers-given-guidance-on-public-statements-for-their-own-good-senior-officer-says/feed0troops52193.jpgdavidpugliese2Investigation report clears Sen. Colin Kenny of harassment allegationshttp://o.canada.com/news/investigation-reportedly-clears-sen-colin-kenny-of-harassment-allegations
http://o.canada.com/news/investigation-reportedly-clears-sen-colin-kenny-of-harassment-allegations#commentsTue, 01 Apr 2014 22:30:18 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=420768]]>OTTAWA — A Senate-appointed investigator has found in favour of Sen. Colin Kenny after he was accused last October of sexually and verbally harassing a staff member and ordering her to run personal errands for him.

While the investigator’s report has not been made public, the independent investigator has found that on each accusation of wrongdoing “harassment has not occurred.”

The report is now in the hands of Kenny and the former assistant, Pascale Brisson, who each have five days to respond before it is delivered to the Senate Conservative and Senate Liberal whips.

It is ultimately up to the Senate as a whole to decide what should be done to any senator who is deemed to have violated any rules. The Senate would order any remedial action needed to prevent recurrences in the future.

Kenny was in the Senate Tuesday. In an email to the Citizen, he declined to comment on the findings of the independent investigator. “I must respect the process,” Kenny said. “I do have great confidence that eventually I will be exonerated.”

The Ontario senator, who is designated as representing Rideau, has previously dismissed the accusations against him as false, telling Postmedia News in November that he expected “at the end of the day to be vindicated.”

Brisson could not be reached for comment.

According to a CBC report, Brisson had alleged Kenny ordered her to do personal errands for him while working, such as paying his bills, buying clothes and making appointments. She also alleged, said the CBC, that Kenny verbally abused and sexually harassed her before she quit in October and filed a complaint.

Government Senate leader Claude Carignan said Tuesday he had not seen the report, but suggested the Conservative and Senate Liberal whips could end up making recommendations “to prevent in the future, misunderstandings or things like that.”

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau declined comment. “I have no senators in my parliamentary caucus and that will be up to the groups of senators in the Senate to decide what next steps are,” Trudeau said. Kenny was appointed as a Liberal senator in 1984 by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, but stepped down to sit as an independent in November. Later, in January, Trudeau removed all senators from his caucus.

According to the CBC, the investigation into Brisson’s complaint was conducted by Deborah Jelly of Glencastle Security Inc., an Ottawa-based, workplace-conflict resolution firm.

Jelly reportedly interviewed Brisson, Kenny, two other Kenny employees and another senator who had employed Brisson. The investigator apparently did not talk to Brisson’s parents, friends or doctor, even though Brisson had reportedly told them about her experience.

Kenny has been an outspoken critic of defence policy, and at one time headed up the Senate’s defence committee, until it devolved into partisan bickering made famous in an online YouTube video.

Kenny reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75 in 2018, by which time he will have served in the Senate for 34 years.

Canada’s air force concluded almost two years ago that the Conservative government’s plan to buy new maritime surveillance aircraft was unaffordable, leaving it little choice but to upgrade the existing fleet of 30-year-old Aurora surveillance planes, according to documents obtained by the Citizen.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson announced March 19 that four additional Auroras would be structurally overhauled and modernized, and that additional improvements would be made to another 10.

In total, Canada will operate a fleet of 14 Auroras, flying them until 2030.

But the documents show that the air force wanted to modernize 18 Auroras in total so it could provide enough surveillance capability for the country’s coasts. That proposal didn’t proceed.

The Conservative government’s Canada First Defence Strategy originally committed to replacing the existing Aurora fleet with 10 to 12 new maritime patrol aircraft by 2020.

But the May 2012 briefing note for the then-vice chief of the defence staff, Vice Admiral Bruce Donaldson, pointed out that there wasn’t enough money.

“During the options analysis phase of the replacement program, this was determined to be unachievable due to fiscal and marketplace challenges,” according to the document obtained by the Citizen using the Access to Information law.

The Department of National Defence had a budget of $3.1 billion to replace the Auroras, first purchased in 1981.

But it determined that some potential replacement aircraft, such as the Boeing P-8, purchased by the U.S. and India, were too expensive.

“The Boeing estimate for the P-8 acquisition is $3.1 billion, our rough estimate is much closer to $5 billion,” Donaldson was told by senior air force officers.

The air force would continue looking for a cheaper solution, he was advised.

Another option, which had been shelved earlier, was the modernization of eight more Auroras to “extend the Aurora (fleet) to 2030.” That proposal would cost $630 million, the air force estimated.

The Conservative government eventually approved the modernization of additional planes but those were limited to four because of the cost.

Over the years, DND will have spent $2 billion to add improvements to the planes to keep them flying. By the time they are to be retired, the Auroras will be 50 years old.

The recently announced modernization package includes new communications equipment and self-defence protective systems for the planes.

General Dynamics Canada in Ottawa expects to get additional work out of the latest upgrade project, as well as IMP Group in Halifax and MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates in Richmond, BC.

Andre Fillion, DND’s director general of aerospace equipment program management, said the existing Aurora contracts for those firms would be amended to account for the new work.

The 14 upgraded aircraft are expected to be on the flight line by 2020, he added.

A replacement aircraft for the Aurora won’t be acquired until 2030.

In the meantime, the air force is looking at the capabilities of unmanned aerial vehicles to see if they can play a larger role in surveillance of Canada’s coastlines.

“We know by delaying that decision out to 2030 it just gives more chance for technologies like that to evolve and it also gives Canadian industry a chance to be better positioned to perhaps have a solution to replace this formidable capability of the Aurora,” explained Maj. Robert Trerice, who works in the directorate of air requirements at the DND.

Defence analysts have complained that DND is being hit hard with funding cuts and that money is in short supply. That, in turn, is hurting the department’s ability to move forward on the government’s defence strategy, they warn.

In addition, the Conservative government announced in February that it was temporarily removing $3.1 billion from the department’s procurement budget.

But DND officials say they have more than enough funding and the removal of the $3.1 billion won’t be an issue for the department or military.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/replacement-for-aurora-surveillance-aircraft-deemed-unaffordable/feed1aircraftdavidpugliese2Canada to honour Afghanistan war veterans in Mayhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/canada-to-honour-afghanistan-war-veterans-in-may
http://o.canada.com/news/national/canada-to-honour-afghanistan-war-veterans-in-may#commentsTue, 18 Mar 2014 14:20:23 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=413001]]>OTTAWA — Canada will hold commemoration ceremonies May 9 for the thousands of soldiers who served in the military mission to Afghanistan.

The announcement was made Tuesday by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as he greeted 93 soldiers at Ottawa’s military airport hangar. They were the last to return home from the war-ravaged country.

Harper said May 9 has been designated a “National Day of Honour.”

“On that day, Canada will recognize those who fought, remember those who fell and salute all those who contributed to this 10-year-mission,” Harper said.

“We will stand together and honour the strength of our men and women in uniform. We will honour the strength of the Canadian families who have faced heart-wrenching loss. We will honour the strength of our communities that supported them.”

The returning soldiers were met at the airport with hugs and kisses from family members.

Harper shook hands with each of the soldiers as they stepped off the CC-177 Globemaster plane that brought them home.

The prime minister was joined by Gov. Gen. David Johnston, Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, and Gen. Thomas Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff.

Johnston welcomed home the troops and thanked them for their service.

“You were exposed to the ultimate risk,” he said.

“You proved your diligence, your toughness and your compassion for the plight of others. Many of you have witnessed the worst and the best of humanity.”

The mission, which began in 2002, cost the lives of 158 Canadian soldiers, one diplomat, one journalist and two civilian contractors.

Soldiers were involved in direct combat for a decade, and during the past two years served as military trainers to the Afghan National Security Force.

The mission came in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington.

NATO forces declared their intent to defeat Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida, which had taken refuge in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban.

The war brought intense battles against the Taliban, which used a variety of methods — notably roadside bombs — to kill Canadian soldiers.

As many as 40,000 Canadian troops rotated through the country.

The mission provoked intense debate in Canada about both its purpose and success. It left a legacy both here and in Afghanistan. In Canada, say many observers, it re-instilled national pride in the military.

But many returning soldiers have had to cope with significant physical injuries or traumatic stress disorder.

The Harper government says there have been major steps forward in Afghanistan: better education, particularly for girls, and the establishment of infrastructure projects to help improve the economy.

But critics say that as Canada and other nations depart Afghanistan, the Taliban is poised to re-establish itself as a powerful influence within the country.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/canada-to-honour-afghanistan-war-veterans-in-may/feed1IMGL9984.JPGmarkkennedy1Fire-damaged HMCS Protecteur could be headed for the scrap heaphttp://o.canada.com/news/national/fire-damaged-hmcs-protecteur-could-be-headed-for-the-scrap-heap
http://o.canada.com/news/national/fire-damaged-hmcs-protecteur-could-be-headed-for-the-scrap-heap#commentsTue, 04 Mar 2014 21:41:34 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=406324]]>A fire-damaged navy supply ship could be headed for the scrap heap, leaving Canada with only one vessel to support its maritime force.

Since HMCS Protecteur is scheduled to be taken out of service sometime between 2016 and 2017, the navy is going to assess whether it’s financially viable to repair the ship or simply dispose of it sooner, according to military sources.

An engine room fire, which broke out last Thursday as Protecteur was sailing north of Hawaii, crippled the vessel. It is now being towed to Pearl Harbor.

An extensive damage assessment will start once Protecteur arrives in Hawaii, according to the Royal Canadian Navy. But there are already indications that the damage is extensive. “There are reports of significant fire and heat damage to the ship’s engine room and considerable heat and smoke damage in surrounding compartments,” the navy noted in a statement.

Defence analyst Martin Shadwick said the navy is facing some hard choices. “Even if Protecteur can be repaired, the navy is going to have to figure out if it should go ahead and do that for a ship they were going to retire in two or three years anyways,” said Shadwick, who teaches strategic studies at Toronto’s York University.

Canadian Forces spokesman Capt. Trevor Reid said the navy has been planning for the retirement of the Protecteur and its sister ship, Preserver, in the 2016-2017 period. “However, a full assessment of the damage sustained by HMCS Protecteur is required before further commenting on its future,” he stated in an email Tuesday.

Shadwick said the navy will also face a problem finding spare parts so it can repair the 44-year-old Protecteur.

Many of the systems on the ship are nearly obsolete, according to naval officers. HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver use boilers to generate steam for their main propulsion. Spare parts are no longer readily available, and the skills needed to maintain such systems, already mature in the 1960s, are becoming increasingly rare.

In October, the federal government confirmed the two Joint Support Ships that are to be built to replace Protecteur and Preserver won’t be ready until 2019-2020.

That will create a two-to-three year gap in which the Royal Canadian Navy will not have access to its own vessels capable of resupplying warships at sea. The navy hopes to rely on its allies to fill that role.

When the fire was reported, HMCS Protecteur was returning from duties in the Pacific Ocean with 279 crew, 17 family members and two civilian contractors who joined the ship for the return transit. Having family members on board for the last part of a voyage is a common practice with ships returning from extended operations, the navy noted.

A U.S. helicopter transferred those family members off the vessel and on to the USS Michael Murphy. They arrived in Pearl Harbor on Tuesday.

Among those were retired vice-admiral Larry Murray, a former acting chief of the defence staff, the navy confirmed. He later served as deputy minister at Veterans Affairs before moving on to become deputy minister at Fisheries and Oceans until his retirement from the public sector. Murray’s son is an officer on HMCS Protecteur.

Around 20 personnel on board the ship received minor injuries as a result of the fire. An investigation into the cause of the blaze is underway.

The fire is the second incident involving the supply ship in the last year. In August, HMCS Protecteur was involved in a collision with HMCS Algonquin during towing exercises en route to Hawaii.

There were no injuries but both ships were damaged in that incident.

dpugliese@ottawacitizen.com

Twitter.com/davidpugliese

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/fire-damaged-hmcs-protecteur-could-be-headed-for-the-scrap-heap/feed2Shipbuildingpostmedianews1Audit finds ‘gaps’ in military daycare, health serviceshttp://o.canada.com/news/audit-finds-gaps-in-military-daycare-health-services
http://o.canada.com/news/audit-finds-gaps-in-military-daycare-health-services#commentsMon, 13 Jan 2014 23:01:04 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=381559]]>OTTAWA — Canadian military families may be described as the “strength behind the uniform,” but Defence Department auditors have found significant “gaps” in their ability to access child and health care in the same way as civilian families.

One doesn’t have to look long to find military parents venting their frustration online about the difficulties in finding daycare for their children, from long waiting lists to the absence of emergency services when a parent gets called away to work.

While many non-military parents can relate, the situation for military families is exacerbated by frequent moves and temporary deployments.

“The frequency of relocations and separations imposed by the military lifestyle can create disadvantages for military families as compared to non-military families,” Defence Department auditors found in a report.

“Therefore, there is a need to address the disadvantages imposed upon them by operational requirements.”

The same holds true for access to health care (including mental-health services and assistance for families with special needs), spousal career support and education.

The auditors’ report was written a year ago but was only recently posted online, and echoes issues identified by Canada’s military ombudsman, who surveyed 370 military families and visited 10 bases before publishing a damning report in November highlighting many of the same problems.

National Defence spends about $50 million to $60 million each year on support programs to help military families deal with the “unique stresses” of the Canadian Forces lifestyle. These programs are delivered mainly at 32 Military Family Resource Centres across the country, and at 11 centres outside the country.

While exact numbers weren’t available, Defence officials told the auditors the services are used by at least half of military families. Rates varied, however, with one estimate putting use at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ont., at more than 90 per cent.

Yet the auditors found that the programs and services “do not explicitly address each of these high-needs areas and/or do not address them to a depth that will effect a significant reduction in support gaps in these key areas.

“Instead, many of the programs/services address issues peripheral to the key family support requirements.”

The auditors acknowledged better access to health care and issues related to spousal employment, such as credential recognition, are provincial and territorial responsibilities. But they indicated that is no excuse for inaction, arguing that “DND leadership and sustained effort will be required to make progress in addressing these systemic disadvantages to military families.”

At the same time, they said Defence officials need to take a good, hard look at ways to improve access to child care for military families.

National Defence says it is taking steps to address the issues raised. That includes discussions about child care with child and youth agencies as well as provincial governments, and signing agreements to make it easier for military families to access health-care services in different jurisdictions.

Defence officials have also said they hope a plan to reduce the number of forced relocations by up to 10 per cent will ease the problem for many families.

The auditors found many military families are “currently able to manage family stressors” and “have greater confidence in the level of support available.” They also discovered through interviews with military commanders and support staff a desire to “temper the image of ‘brokenness’ in military families and focus instead on promotion of families’ inherent resilience.

“The creation of many support programs/services for military families, especially via charitable fundraising, may have perpetuated an image of military families as ‘needy,’” the auditors wrote. “Many interviewees underscored that military families are resilient.”

But the need for more medical care, child care and spousal employment support stood out.

The amount spent on supporting military families represents only about 0.3 per cent of National Defence’s budget, auditors found, and translates to about $950 per family per year.

“Considering federal spending on the current National Child Tax Benefit of $1,367 annually per child per Canadian family, overall public spending on (military family support) is relatively modest,” the auditors wrote.

Improved support for families translates into a stronger Canadian Forces, they added, with military members being more willing to deploy and more willing to stay in the military if their families are supported.

lberthiaume@postmedia.com

Twitter:/leeberthiaume

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/audit-finds-gaps-in-military-daycare-health-services/feed1Doing better for military familiesleeberthiaumeArmoured vehicle cancellation hints at smaller, leaner Canadian militaryhttp://o.canada.com/news/armoured-vehicle-cancellation-hints-at-smaller-leaner-canadian-military
http://o.canada.com/news/armoured-vehicle-cancellation-hints-at-smaller-leaner-canadian-military#commentsFri, 20 Dec 2013 21:52:54 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=372577]]>OTTAWA — The decision to pull the plug on new fighting vehicles for the army could be a sign of things to come as the Canadian Forces grapple with a budget crunch that wasn’t supposed to happen.

Defence chief Gen. Tom Lawson confirmed Friday the military was cancelling plans to spend $2.1 billion on 108 close-combat vehicles, previously described as “essential” for protecting Canadian soldiers at war.

He and Canadian Army commander Lt.-Gen. Marquis Hainse said recent upgrades to the army’s existing light-armoured vehicle fleet, combined with the end of the Afghan mission, had eliminated the need for what were essentially heavily armoured personnel carriers.

“This is not a budgetary discussion,” Lawson said during a brief press conference. “The requirement for this particular piece of equipment is based on an analysis of the most likely future requirements and what we have as the army’s capacity right now to meet those.”

Yet it’s no coincidence that the move comes as the Conservative government and National Defence are taking a long, hard look at the future of Canada’s military in the context of short- and long-term belt-tightening.

Things weren’t supposed to be this way.

In 2008, the Conservative government unveiled what it called its Canada First Defence Strategy, which it touted as an “unprecedented commitment of stable, long-term funding.”

All told, the Conservatives promised to invest $490 billion over 20 years to grow the military’s size and buy new equipment, including the close-combat vehicles.

But then came the economic crisis and the government’s promise to eliminate the federal deficit by 2015.

Lawson told reporters Friday he believed the Canada First Defence Strategy as originally envisioned five years ago was still affordable in the current financial context.

That claim directly contradicts assessments from former military commanders, defence analysts and even Defence Department planners, who concluded nearly three years ago that the plan was unaffordable.

And cracks are starting to show.

The navy is reportedly taking five of its 12 maritime coastal defence vessels out of service to save cash, while the army has parked a large number of trucks and other support vehicles for the foreseeable future.

Budgets for uniforms are being slashed, while training and maintenance have been scaled back.

There have been suggestions this was the real impetus for pulling the plug on the close-combat vehicle program, namely that the military wanted to redirect the savings into other priority areas.

Yet the close-combat vehicle decision could also foretell bigger changes to come.

The Conservative government had until this point been unwilling to scale back demands that the military maintain a certain number of personnel or acquire certain equipment.

This included a move this past summer to stop the department from plugging budget holes with money intended for procurement projects, and a requirement that the Canadian Forces keep 68,000 full-time troops and 27,000 reservists despite the spending cuts.

But Lawson said last month personnel cuts could be on the table when military planners present cabinet with options for a new, scaled-down version of the Canada First Defence Strategy in light of the new fiscal reality.

And there are growing signs that what money has been set aside for new military aircraft and ships won’t be enough to purchase what was promised.

The decision to let the close-combat vehicle project go could be an indication that the Conservative government is willing to entertain a smaller force with less equipment.

“It’s definitely pointing in that direction,” said defence analyst David Perry of the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations Institute.

Yet there are some who say that what’s really needed is a real strategic vision for Canadian defence over the coming years and decades to give direction to the changes that are underway.

Even today, the Canada First Defence Strategy is panned as little more than a glorified shopping list that has no strategic underpinning.

“It was an investment plan,” said former military procurement chief Dan Ross. “It wasn’t a white paper. It wasn’t a defence policy. In fact, I don’t think it even had any written narrative to it. It just had an introduction.”

Auditor general Michael Ferguson’s recent report on the national shipbuilding program also reiterated this lack of strategic guidance, noting that while the Canada First Defence Strategy laid out how many ships the government wanted, it didn’t say what it expected them to do.

Yet no one actually believes the Conservatives will unveil something like a defence white paper.

“It does not appear to me that there’s very much of a strategic thought floating around the heads of this government,” said Kim Richard Nossal, director of policy studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.

“There isn’t much in the way of long-term thinking, in large part because it doesn’t occur to them to need long-term thinking.”

That has prompted fears for the future as the military moves into an era of deep uncertainty.

“You do need to have a reasonable framework,” Ross said. “Otherwise you’re totally in the dark.”

lberthiaume(at)postmedia.com

Twitter:/leeberthiaume

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/armoured-vehicle-cancellation-hints-at-smaller-leaner-canadian-military/feed1Tom LawsonleeberthiaumePeter MacKay defends $2M cost of Halifax defence forumhttp://o.canada.com/news/world/peter-mackay-defends-2m-cost-of-halifax-defence-forum
http://o.canada.com/news/world/peter-mackay-defends-2m-cost-of-halifax-defence-forum#commentsFri, 22 Nov 2013 21:59:40 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=354224]]>OTTAWA — As hundreds of delegates descend on Halifax for a fifth annual global security conference, Justice Minister Peter MacKay is defending the cost of the $2 million event that includes his wife and former chief of staff among the list of esteemed speakers.

Media relations for the Halifax International Security Forum, which was renewed for another five years this week to the tune of $9.8 million, are also being handled by MacKay’s former director of communications.

Something of a taxpayer-funded family affair for the Central Nova MP, whose hometown also benefits economically, he made no apologies Friday for what has become a pet project he took on while defence minister with the help of people like his former chief of staff John MacDonell.

“What we have now is 300 influence-makers from 50 different countries, from security backgrounds, diplomatic backgrounds. We have ambassadors, ministers. We have a lot of folks from the military,” he said in an interview with Postmedia News, adding the conference — which also counts U.S. Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel, Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon and French Defence Minister Francis Delon among its delegates — was actually “oversubscribed” this year.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay arrives at a news conference at the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax on Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013. The federal government is committing $9.8 million over the next five years to the annual conference which brings together defence and international security experts to discuss global security challenges. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Vaughan

“Being able to bring the discussion here, in addition to exposing Canada to the perspectives of these world leaders, it also brings those world leaders right here to our backyard to bring about a greater understanding of our own security challenges.”

According to conference organizers, speakers are not paid to participate but the forum will sometimes provide travel and accommodation assistance to “ensure the highest-quality discussions occur on Canadian shores.”

MacKay said the inspiration for bringing the conference to Halifax came from his attendance at similar forums in Munich and Brussels. But those, he added, focused more on Europe and the United States and having it here is a way to boost Canada’s “visibility” and “credibility on the world stage.” It’s also an opportunity to showcase Canadian industry and he expects defence ministers will have an opportunity to visit the Irving shipyard where Canada’s Arctic patrol vessels are being built.

“It’s hard to put a price on it but I just met with about 25 industry representatives from Atlantic Canadian businesses that are very interested in opportunities to interface with other countries and representatives,” he said. “Companies like Composite Atlantic, IMP Aerospace. Companies that are doing really innovative work right here in Atlantic Canada and making great contributions to the global supply chain.”

Besides a jam-packed agenda that includes a five-kilometre run with Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, as well as dozens of on and off-record discussions on subjects like terrorism, cybersecurity, the Middle East, energy security, nuclear disarmament, the crisis in Syria and the war in Afghanistan, the event is known as an opportunity for productive bilateral discussions that take place quietly in the corridors and around the dinner table.

While no concrete initiatives or agreements related to global peace and security have emerged from the event yet, MacKay maintained, “we have all the ingredients for that to happen.”

As for the cost, which is covered jointly by National Defence and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, this year’s event has seen a boost in private sector funding and MacKay hopes the forum will eventually be self-sustaining.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/world/peter-mackay-defends-2m-cost-of-halifax-defence-forum/feed1Peter MacKaytobicohenPeter MacKayPanthers’ D is the cat’s meowhttp://o.canada.com/sports/panthers-d-is-the-cats-meow
http://o.canada.com/sports/panthers-d-is-the-cats-meow#commentsTue, 12 Nov 2013 01:22:44 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=345567]]>CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The Panthers have allowed the second-fewest points in the NFL, the second-fewest yards and have forced 21 turnovers this season.
And now they’re figuring out how to win close games.
That’s a dangerous combination for a team on a five-game winning streak and playing with a ton of confidence.
“That’s our style of defence,” defensive end Greg Hardy said. “We dominate. We take what we want. We do what we want.”
The Panthers were once known as the team that couldn’t hold a lead. They’ve lost 10 games since 2011 after leading in the fourth quarter, including the first two this season against Buffalo and Seattle.
But somewhere along the line, things have changed.
The Panthers are no longer afraid to lose games; they’re eager to win them.
They’ve developed a noticeable swagger.
On Sunday the Panthers (6-3) proved they could play with the big dogs, making two defensive stops in the final four minutes to beat the defending NFC champion San Francisco 49ers 10-9 for their fifth straight win.
“That’s very important, in light of what happened earlier in the year in Buffalo,” Panthers coach Ron Rivera said. “It tells these guys that have the potential to do things.”

Jordan Senn of the Carolina Panthers tips a punt by 49ers kicker Andy Lee at Candlestick Park on Nov. 10, 2013 in San Francisco.

The Buffalo game is one that still stings.
The Panthers allowed rookie quarterback EJ Manuel to move his team 80 yards for the winning touchdown in the final 1:39 without any timeouts.
Carolina has since won six of seven, and its defence ranks among the top five in almost every major statistical category.
The Panthers have been particularly tough after halftime, allowing just 24 second half points in their six wins.
Only two teams this season have scored more than 15 points against the Panthers.
For those critics who felt like Carolina’s record was a mirage given its previous five wins had come against teams with a combined 8-33 record, Sunday showed that the Panthers are for real.
Carolina’s front seven was expected to be strong coming into the season with the addition of defensive tackles Star Lotulelei and Kawann Short, the team’s top two draft picks.
But questions lingered about a young and inexperienced secondary and the injury to starting free safety Charles Godfrey in week two only heightened that concern.
But others have stepped up.
Rivera said one of the major differences from last year’s defence has been players’ familiarity with defensive co-ordinator Sean McDermott’s system.
“For a lot of these guys, it’s their second or third year in the system and at that point you see guys playing very comfortable and very fast and that makes a difference,” Rivera said.
Said McDermott: “There is an identity within that guys have bought into and now they are reaping the benefits of their hard work.”
But it’s not just the veterans that are producing.
The Panthers are getting contributions from their rookie class.
At one key point during Sunday’s game the Panthers had five rookies on the field — Lotulelei and Short, linebacker AJ Klein, cornerback Melvin White and safety Robert Lester. White and Lester are undrafted free agents.
“We’re playing young guys who have learned very quickly,” Rivera said. “These guys know what we want them to do.”
Defensive end Charles Johnson said the Panthers just had to learn to get over that hump and win games.
And now they have.
“We had too many games where we ended a close game with a loss,” Johnson said. “We have to keep reiterating to ourselves to get over this hump and win it on defence. Everybody was on the same page and when everybody’s on the same page, buying into the scheme and doing the right thing, you will end up being successful.”
The Panthers (6-3) face another stiff challenge next Monday night when they host the New England Patriots in a nationally televised game.
They can’t wait.
“We’re going to come out and hit them in the mouth with a nasty attitude,” Hardy said.

]]>http://o.canada.com/sports/panthers-d-is-the-cats-meow/feed0Carolina Panthers v San Francisco 49erstheassociatedpresscanadaJordan Senn of the Carolina Panthers tips a punt by 49ers kicker Andy Lee at Candlestick Park on Nov. 10, 2013 in San Francisco.Injured Canadian Forces members could be front of the line for other public service jobshttp://o.canada.com/news/national/injured-candian-forces-members-could-be-front-of-the-line-for-other-public-service-jobs
http://o.canada.com/news/national/injured-candian-forces-members-could-be-front-of-the-line-for-other-public-service-jobs#commentsThu, 07 Nov 2013 17:29:32 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=342606]]>OTTAWA — Veterans injured in the line of duty could soon find themselves at the front of the line when it comes to federal job openings thanks to a proposal unveiled by the Conservative government Thursday.

But the plan has received a tepid response from opposition critics and some veterans advocates who fear it will help only a small number of people.

Canadian Forces members discharged from the military because of injuries have already enjoyed the same preferential treatment as visible minorities and people with disabilities when it comes to applying for federal jobs.

In other words, any applicant who is an injured vet, visible minority or who has a disability, and is qualified for the job they have applied for must be hired before anyone else who meets the same job qualifications.

But legislation introduced by the Conservative government in the House of Commons Thursday would bump soldiers, sailors and air personnel who were injured in the line of duty even higher than those other applicants.

The priority treatment would apply for five years after the veteran is released from the military, instead of the current two.

Veterans who were released for medical reasons that were not related to their service will remain at the lower level, but also see their special treatment extended from two to five years.

The change will apply retroactively to any Forces members who receive a medical discharge and qualified for the priority treatment on or after April 1, 2012.

In an interview, Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino said the federal government is already doing a lot to help veterans, including injured vets, but “this one, I feel, is something that is really going to help.”

“If you talk about someone coming out of the military who is injured or have other medical conditions as a result of their service to country, then I think it’s an obligation,” he said of the government providing assistance. “And I see this as a natural thing for us to do. We could have maybe done it earlier. I don’t know, I can’t speak to that. But we’re doing it now and that’s what counts.”

Opposition critics and veterans advocates said they welcomed any initiative that sought to help those who had been injured in the line of duty, and that trying to find them other jobs in the federal government made sense. But they also predicted problems in how the initiative would work in real life.

Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Secretary Brad White said he has heard numerous reports of injured veterans qualifying for priority treatment but still having no luck finding another job in the federal government.

The problem for many, he said, is that they don’t meet the job criteria.

“Soldiers, sailors and air people coming out of the Canadian Forces don’t always happen to have things like a university degree. They’re not always bilingual. And they don’t tend to sometimes get into the shooting galleries for the jobs because they don’t have those requirements.”

While Fantino acknowledged Veterans Affairs is not perfect and there is always more to be done, he said there were programs in place to help train injured soldiers and veterans and help them transition into civilian life.

A Public Service Commission report tabled in the House of Commons this week said 1,083 military and RCMP members were medically discharged from 2008 to 2013 and qualified for priority hiring benefits under the current system.

Of those, 763 or about 70 per cent, ended up finding another job in the federal government.

“This demonstrates both the commitment of departments and agencies to place these former members, and the fact that these former members have the skills needed in the public service,” the report reads.

However, the CBC reported earlier this year that a total of 8,702 Canadian Forces members had been released over that same period, and it wasn’t clear why only 1,083 qualified for the priority benefit.

To that end, NDP veterans affairs critic Peter Stoffer questioned who would decide whether an injury sustained by a member of the Forces was a result of their job or not.

“That’s a problem we always have with the brass,” he said.

The CBC report also cited documents obtained by Liberal Sen. Percy Downe that found the majority of those who were hired to federal government jobs had ended up back at National Defence or Veterans Affairs Canada as civilian employees.

Liberal veterans affairs critic Jim Karygiannis noted that the Conservative government had ordered the closing of nine Veterans Affairs service centres across the country, which he said meant jobs that might have gone to injured veterans were no longer available.

He also noted the government had capped federal spending and is cutting jobs, including civilian jobs at National Defence.

The PSC report said 95 injured vets saw their priority benefits expire last year, and 98 in 2011.

In fact, less than half of those who qualified for the special treatment last year found jobs, which the report blamed on federal employees who were laid off due to budget cuts being given higher priority.

“So how the hell are you going to hire veterans when you aren’t creating anymore jobs?” Karygiannis asked.

The new change would put vets on the same priority level as federal employees who have recently been laid off. But Karygiannis said that’s little comfort.

While the government’s road map will focus heavily on fiscal prudence and economic management, Norquay expects the Conservatives will address overdue greenhouse gas regulations for the oil and gas industry.

“If they (greenhouse gas regulations) are already out by then, expect the federal government to signal its desire to seek equivalency agreements with provinces wherever practical,” says Norquay, who was communications director for Harper when he was official Opposition leader.

Also, he expects commitments of federal support to facilitate major pipeline projects like the Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and a potential west-east pipeline in Canada.

However, “any U.S. linkage between Canada’s (greenhouse gas) policies and approval of Keystone will prove tricky,” he says.

The government’s ongoing problems in obtaining defence equipment, such as fighter jets, helicopters and military trucks, is a “nine-alarm catastrophe for the government,” due to cost overruns and huge delays, he says.

He expects the government will likely use the throne speech to promise additional changes to the decision-making and management of procurement in the space, aerospace and defence sectors.

“Anything proposed is likely to be welcomed as an improvement in this disaster zone,” adds Norquay, who also worked as a senior advisor to former prime minister Brian Mulroney.

With Canada’s elections laws in the spotlight, the throne speech “will very likely” promise major reforms to the Elections Act to deal with the robocalls affair and help restore credibility to the electoral process in Canada, he adds.

Norquay will also be looking to see if the throne speech, which will be delivered in the Senate by Gov. Gen. David Johnston, signals any federal effort to resolve the tricky issue of natural resource revenue sharing between provincial governments and First Nations communities.

He expects several other aboriginal issues — including First Nations land tenure, additional federal funding for education on reserves, and an improved process for land claims and treaty implementation — will also be addressed.

And on trade, Canadians should expect another commitment to complete ongoing Canada-EU free-trade negotiations, he says. If an agreement is reached before the speech, there will likely be a commitment to implement the trade deal, he says.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/national/heres-what-to-look-for-in-the-throne-speech-says-stephen-harpers-former-communications-director/feed020110603_GG_SFT_feature_2jasonfeketeTime to reboot Canada’s defence strategyhttp://o.canada.com/news/time-to-reboot-canadas-defence-strategy
http://o.canada.com/news/time-to-reboot-canadas-defence-strategy#commentsMon, 19 Aug 2013 14:38:59 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=297242]]>The following oped is offered by former lieutenant-general George Macdonald, a research fellow of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute and senior consultant with CFN Consultants:

The Canada First Defence Strategy, released in May 2008, remains unchanged even though many of the circumstances that existed when it was written have evolved. In 2008, the Canadian Armed Forces were still very much occupied with a large contingent of personnel in Afghanistan, fighting in a combat situation that was becoming increasingly unpopular with the Canadian public. The transition to a smaller, training mission centered around Kabul has now all but removed the mission from our consciousness, even though almost 1,000 personnel continue to serve in what can only be assessed as a dangerous country.

The defence budget has also taken hits as a major target for a deficit-fighting government trying to limit federal discretionary spending. These reductions have affected operational budgets for the most part – capital spending on major new equipment remains protected in order to carry out the listed Defence Strategy plans.

So we have, for example, a situation where the (now former) commander of the Canadian Army raises the alarm about not having enough funding to conduct training and maintain skills hard-won in Afghanistan and, at the same time, a large project to purchase a fleet of close-combat vehicles for about $2 billion. While having modern equipment is helpful, we should be comfortable that it will meet a need that is consistent with the government’s defence policy and that the allocation of resources will be balanced to ensure adequate training and support will also be available to safeguard its effective employment.

What employment might that be?

If world events suddenly precipitated circumstances where another large combat mission was potentially needed, would Canada be as ready to stand up as we were in the months following 9/11? (Indeed, would the Americans be as aggressive in their actions if a similar scenario played out again?) Do we remain as concerned about the threat of terrorism as we should be, given the incidents that have occurred in allied nations since 9/11? Do we have an adequate understanding of other threats that could demand a military reaction? Do we understand the implications for Canadian security of the many instances of strife and conflict in the world? Is our ability to deal with cyber-attacks anywhere near what it needs to be to ensure the security of our power supply, electricity, transportation system and health care?

Overall, we should be asking ourselves if we are being realistic in assigning the necessary priority to the defence and security capabilities we will need in the future, however uncertain these might be. This is certainly easier said than done, but demands regular, concerted focus if we are serious about what capabilities we need and how we might employ them.

This is not a new dilemma. Unexpected developments such as the fall of the Berlin Wall, a world recession, terrorist attack or major natural disaster, all with fallout implications for our economy and security, will continue. Sometimes the best we can do is hedge our bets to develop capabilities that will be as multi-purpose, efficient and effective as possible.

Defence resources should be dedicated to nurturing capabilities that will have the highest probability of being useful, recognizing that we will likely be employing them in a multinational effort, working closely with like-minded nations. This was the case, for example, in the support provided to the Libyan air campaign.

By almost any measure, then, it is time to review, modify and re-issue the Canada First Defence Strategy. A failure to recognize that circumstances have changed since it was issued will almost certainly result in the procurement of capabilities that are less relevant to future operations than they were initially thought to be. New technologies are evolving. Funding is not as available as previously projected. Major defence projects have fallen behind their anticipated procurement dates, and the need for personnel to deploy to a combat zone is not readily apparent at this time.

A reaffirmation of our defence priorities, with a realistic assessment of what can be done within the current and projected defence budget, is needed now. Otherwise, the prevailing uncertainty surrounding defence procurement, and the lack of direction in how funding should be allocated, will continue to compromise the real capability of the Canadian Armed Forces, to the detriment of the public it serves and the missions it might be called upon to fulfill.

George Macdonald is a research fellow of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute and senior consultant with CFN Consultants.He is a retired lieutenant-general who served 38 years in the Canadian Forces, and was vice-chief of the Defence Staff from 2001 to 2004.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/time-to-reboot-canadas-defence-strategy/feed0???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????postmedianews1Harper government’s defence spending cuts raise spectre of another ‘decade of darkness’http://o.canada.com/news/harper-governments-defence-spending-cuts-raise-spectre-of-another-decade-of-darkness
http://o.canada.com/news/harper-governments-defence-spending-cuts-raise-spectre-of-another-decade-of-darkness#commentsTue, 19 Mar 2013 21:27:48 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=217374]]>OTTAWA – The Harper government’s oft-stated support for Canada’s military is coming under the microscope as senior officers and defence analysts brace for more cuts in Thursday’s federal budget.

And some are even warning that unless dramatic steps are taken, the military is in danger of entering another dreaded “decade of darkness.”

An analysis by retired Lt.-Col Brian MacDonald of the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) has found military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product trending toward its lowest level since 1997.

The “decade of darkness” was the name given by former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier to describe the deep spending cuts imposed on the military by the government of former prime minister Jean Chretien in the 1990s.

MacDonald stated that the declining ratio of defence spending to GDP — from a high of 1.4 per cent in 2009-10 to an estimated 1.08 per cent by 2015 — is “more consistent to a return to ‘the Decade of Darkness’ than to the ‘Brave New World’ promised” by the federal Conservatives.

Such a comparison is potentially volatile for the federal government, which has painted itself as a champion of the Canadian Forces while blasting the Chretien government for the cuts imposed under its rule.

Douglas Bland, chair of defence management studies at Queen’s University, said the Conservatives have discovered what the Chretien Liberals already knew: there’s always cash to be found in the defence budget.

“It’s like a change jar,” Bland said, noting that provinces don’t get angry when money is taken from the military and few Canadians notice, “so there is very little blowback.”

But CDA analyst David Perry wasn’t prepared to say the Canadian Forces is entering another “decade of darkness.”

Perry released his own study this week that found national defence funding has been reduced by $2.12 billion, or about 10.6 per cent, in the last two federal budgets — a number that may be even higher if new cuts are introduced in Thursday’s budget.

But that compares to a more than 20 per cent cut imposed by the Chretien government, Perry said, “so we’re about halfway to where we were in the ’90s”

The fact the federal government has pledged to maintain the Canadian Forces’ strength at 68,000 regular force members and 27,000 reservists, and that it’s still planning to buy new equipment, are noteworthy.

“Every other time the budget has been cut, the frontline personnel have been reduced and the capital budget has been frozen or reduced,” Perry said. “This will make it easier to come back in three or four years if the books recover and bump things back up.”

But the fact the military is severely restricted in what it can and cannot slash is causing other short-term problems, Perry said, including hitting training and maintenance disproportionately hard.

This is consistent with concerns recently raised by the head of the Canadian Army, Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, whose own force is facing a 22 per cent spending cut.

“While we have had our budget reduced by 22 per cent, there are a bunch of fixed costs,” Devlin told a Senate committee on Dec. 3. “It means that the training budgets for the formations are probably about 45 per cent lower than it was.”

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson acknowledged during an appearance before a Senate committee Monday that managing the spending reduction would be the focus of senior officers for the foreseeable future.

And he agreed there will be challenges.

“Anywhere we look for these savings, we will do so carefully,” Lawson said. “But there will be some loss of capability.”

Yet the country’s top soldier said he remained optimistic — in part because the military had recovered from the “decade of darkness.”

“The Canadian Armed Forces of 2013 is well ahead of where we were back in the mid-1990s,” Lawson said. “I can see clearly how far we have come to where we are today.”

lberthiaume(at)postmedia.com

Twitter:/leeberthiaume

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/harper-governments-defence-spending-cuts-raise-spectre-of-another-decade-of-darkness/feed1Defence budgetleeberthiaumeFederal Court of Canada rules in favour of U.S. war deserterhttp://o.canada.com/news/national/federal-court-of-canada-rules-in-favour-of-u-s-war-deserter
http://o.canada.com/news/national/federal-court-of-canada-rules-in-favour-of-u-s-war-deserter#commentsTue, 05 Feb 2013 23:12:44 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=194026]]>OTTAWA — The Federal Court has ruled in favour of another United States war resister and has ordered Jules Tindungan’s case be returned to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

According to his lawyer Alyssa Manning, this is the 11th time since 2008 that the courts have ruled in favour of U.S. war resisters.

It’s the first time, however, that the courts have not simply been moved by evidence they wouldn’t get fair treatment in the U.S. thanks to an outdated military justice system and the fact that punishment tends to be tougher the more vocal and political the deserter. In this case, she said, the court was also compelled by evidence that the U.S. military has violated international conventions on warfare.

That said, Manning is not convinced the ruling will necessarily result in asylum for the dozens of U.S. war resisters who haven’t already been deported and subsequently imprisoned, but still remain in Canada at the mercy of either the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) or Citizenship and Immigration. She argues the Conservative government has made it clear that war resisters are criminals and she questions the independence of the arm’s-length IRB as a result.

“It’s definitely a good decision from the war resister’s perspective given the clear direction the court does provide to immigration decision makers and I think that legally, the evidence is very clear that these men and women meet the test for somebody who is entitled to refugee protection,” she said.

“That being said, unfortunately the Conservative government has made its position very clear and has even issued a directive to all immigration officers called Operational Bulletin 202 that has instructed them to consider persons such as Mr. Tindungan as criminals despite what international law says about a soldier’s rights, or even obligation, to refuse condemned military conduct.

“As long as there is clear instruction coming from, I guess the minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, that these people should not be given status, it’s going to be hard for them to win despite all of the evidence,” she added.

The 25-year-old California man deserted the U.S. army in 2008 following a 15-month tour in Afghanistan after learning he would be redeployed to combat instead of reassigned as requested. According to the court ruling, his decision was prompted by a “moral objection” to certain things he “witnessed and participated in,” including the torture of detainees, violent house raids on civilian homes, “indiscriminate and routine” firing into populated civilian areas and the strapping of dead insurgents to the front of U.S. military vehicles as a form of intimidation.

He is now married to Canadian Nicole Burton, living in Toronto and employed as an iron worker.

“I’m pretty determined to stay here,” he said in an interview Tuesday. “Me and my wife, we want to start a family here in Canada and I’ve made it my home. I’ve made a lot of friends, a lot of people I consider family.

Tindungan said he’s encouraged by the decision but likely to “take things in stride” given the government’s position. Still, he’s “very happy that one of the highest courts in Canada” found the board erred by not considering the “massive amounts of documentation about breaches of the Geneva convention” he put forward.

“I also feel satisfied that the Federal Court also sees the United States military justice system is outdated and that if I were to go back to the United States military, that I would be treated unfairly and I wouldn’t get a fair trial,” he said.

“Regardless of the outcome, I’m trying to stay motivated and trying to stay confident.”

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney came under fire for calling U.S. war deserters “bogus refugee claimants” in 2009 when Kimberly Rivera, an Iraq war veteran and the first female deserter to flee to Canada, was first ordered to leave the country. She was finally was deported after exhausting all her options last fall.

On Tuesday, a spokeswoman for the minister noted claims are assessed on a case-by-case basis by the “independent” IRB, that all of them have been rejected so far and that all of those rejections were ultimately upheld by the Federal Court.

“We do not believe that President Obama’s administration subjects American soldiers to persecution,” Alexis Pavlich added.

“Military deserters from the democratic United States are not refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term.”

NDP immigration critic Jinny Sims argued the Conservative government approaches these cases with a certain “ideological bent” or bias. She said the Operational Bulletin issued by CIC raises serious questions about transparency and whether each case is in fact “dealt with on its own merit.”

Meanwhile, a 2008 Angus-Reid poll found 67 per cent of Canadians approve of granting permanent residency to U.S. military deserters.

Manning expects it will take at least six months before Tindungan gets a new hearing before the IRB.

As they lick their wounds, settle back for the holidays and take stock, Conservatives will be asking themselves whether their F-35 “reset” did the trick – whether it has inoculated them, at long last, from procurement disease, which has the capacity to cripple Canadian governments like little else can.

It’s early. Previous storms – remember prorogation, in 2008 and 2009 – eventually passed. The Harper government’s explicit appeal to a kind of glum pragmatism, which purports to place the arguments for economic stability and security above all others, has proven extraordinarily resilient.

That said, the Tories have cause for concern, it seems to me. Wednesday’s passion play in Ottawa, with Defence Minister Peter MacKay playing the goat and Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose the heroine, might have been tactically brilliant and persuasive – two years ago. Today it looks like another ungainly half-measure, seeded with hand grenades waiting to go off.

For starters, the killing of the sole-source F-35 program – which is no mere reset, but rather a wholesale repudiation of the government’s core military procurement policy of the 2011 campaign – still has Canada within the international consortium of F-35 partners. That brings a price tag of more than $500-million (U.S.) over the life of the program. It does not commit Canada to buying the F-35, and never did. It gives us a seat at the table, and the right to bid on related contracts, of which more than $435-million worth, according to Industry Canada, have been signed so far.

The argument that Canada should remain in this consortium, and indeed continue to invest in it for the industrial benefits, whether or not the RCAF ever acquires the jet, is one that can plausibly be made. But it should have been made back in 2010. For the government to make it now raises an obvious problem. Why should taxpayers be on the hook for a highly controversial, problem-plagued project that, all over the world, is under review, because of rising costs? Even the Pentagon, which has signed on to buy 2,443 F-35s, is expected to reduce its order. Surely it would be simpler just to opt out, hold a competition, find the best plane available that we can afford, and move on. Never mind the Porsche. Buy the Ford F-150.

Except that walking away has consequences too, beyond the Montreal aerospace jobs lovingly referred to by Prime Minister Stephen Harper (which industry sources tell me are not actually at risk, at least not imminently). There is a built-in domino effect: Canada opts out, causing Lockheed-Martin’s price to rise, which causes Japan to opt out, causing the price to rise again, and so on. At the end is program collapse. But a collapse is unthinkable, because America’s air defence through 2040 and beyond has been predicated on the F-35. In effect, consortium signatories are not free agents. This problem has no easy or obvious solution.

Next, although the new process walks and talks like a competition, it is not one – even though a competition must surely come. The “options analysis” under way cannot realistically lead to a recommendation for another sole-source purchase – be it of Saab’s Gripen, Dassault’s Rafale, Boeing’s Super Hornet, the Eurofighter Typhoon, or indeed the F-35. Even if such a move technically were deemed sensible, it would be politically suicidal, given the history. Nothing short of a new statement of requirements, followed by a full international competition, will pass the sniff test. Which begs the question: Why isn’t that happening now? Each additional step adds to the delay, the cost, and the potential for more controversy.

The third factor is purely political. By that measure, it seems to me, Wednesday’s production was an unmitigated disaster for the Conservatives.

MacKay – the minister most responsible for the mess, by universal agreement – had only to play the part of a contrite public servant who has learned some hard lessons. Instead, he brazened it out, hiding yet again behind Canadian men and women in uniform, who deserve better. Meantime, MacKay’s parliamentary secretary Chris Alexander continued with his surreal attempts to deny the government ever set a foot wrong on the F-35, let alone low-balled the costs. It was all a regrettable misunderstanding, abetted by “loose talk.” More than anything else, coming from a once-respected public servant, this was ignoble and sad.

What these two performances suggest is that, despite the substantial time, money, preparation, forethought and planning that clearly preceded this reversal, the underlying mindset that made it necessary – comprised of excessive partisanship, systematic contempt for critics, a mania for message control, and a clench-jawed refusal to acknowledge mistakes – hasn’t changed.

This is something no mere procurement “reset” can alter. It begs for a top-to-bottom cabinet shuffle, beginning with MacKay, and a reset of the government itself. Christmas would be an opportune time for that to happen.

Twitter.com/mdentandt

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/1214-col-dentandt/feed0Defence Minister Peter MacKaymikedentandtHow the U.S. presidential election will affect Canada (and it will)http://o.canada.com/news/how-the-u-s-presidential-election-will-impact-canada-and-it-will
http://o.canada.com/news/how-the-u-s-presidential-election-will-impact-canada-and-it-will#commentsThu, 01 Nov 2012 21:33:47 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=141777]]>OTTAWA — Canadians don’t get a say in who’s elected to the White House Tuesday, but we’ve got skin in the game since the result will have wide-ranging impacts for us.

Here’s a look at how a Mitt Romney presidency or a Barack Obama second term could affect Canadians:

The Military

Canada’s reliance on the U.S. and the American military for its defence and security is unparallelled. It’s one of the main reasons this country gets away with spending just over one per cent of GDP on the military when the NATO target is two per cent.

The U.S., for the record, spends about four per cent of its GDP on defence.

That is expected to change as cuts to American military spending are inevitable given the state of the U.S. economy and its multi-trillion-dollar deficit. The degree of reduction, however, depends on who comes to the White House.

Romney’s plan will have least impact on Canadian defence and security, as he wants a minimum of four per cent of U.S. GDP spent on the American military.

Obama’s plan is potentially more worrying for Canadian military planners. While he has not provided any specifics, Obama has said he plans to use half the money saved from the U.S. pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan to pay down the debt, and re-invest the other half in infrastructure.

If that represents a return to pre-2001 funding levels — it’s not clear if it does or not — then that would put U.S. defence spending way below four per cent, perhaps even closer to three per cent.

That still represents major dollars, but Canada and other U.S. allies will undoubtedly face pressure to start doing more and increase their defence funding.

Health Care

The fate of Obama’s public health care plan has been another central theme during the campaign, with Romney promising to scrap it if elected president. If that happens, Canadians, even though many like public health care as a concept, may want to breathe a sigh of relief.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, is expected to result in 32 million more Americans having access to health care. The Association of American Medical Colleges has predicted that will result in a shortfall of 63,000 doctors by 2015.

The U.S. already has a history of recruiting Canadian-trained doctors and nurses to help address its existing shortfall. While the southward flow has slowed in recent years, there are concerns within the Canadian medical sector that Obamacare would reverse that trend.

The Economy

The economic fates of Canada and the United States are intertwined. How the U.S. goes, so goes Canada.

The massive American national debt continues to spiral out of control, unemployment remains around eight per cent, and there is no agreement over how to get out of the mess.

Obama’s approach is to cut military spending and putting a greater tax burden on the country’s biggest businesses and wealthiest citizens to ease the pain borne by the middle-class.

Romney’s plan will be familiar to Canadians, as it emphasizes tax cuts for big business in the hope of encouraging job creation and investment, slashing non-military government spending, and downloading services to states.

Each plan has ramifications for Canada.

Romney made a point during the second presidential debate of highlighting Canada’s low corporate tax rate. He has promised to cut the U.S. rate, which could affect Canada’s ability to attract foreign investment. His proposed cuts to government funding could result in less work for Canadian companies that have taken advantage of U.S. government contracts.

Obama’s plan to maintain most government spending, and his promise to re-invest half of the billions saved from the pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan into infrastructure, may mean opportunities for Canadian companies.

Another issue is whether either candidate can get his plan through Congress, which has been gridlocked due to fighting between Republicans, Democrats and Tea Partyers.

Some say Romney will have an easier time as the Republicans are predicted to hold onto their majority in the House of Representatives, and may even retake the Senate. But even if the Democrats lose the Senate, the Tea Party movement could be a thorn in Romney’s side.

Others are hoping Obama will be the target of fewer political games in Congress during his second term, but that may be wishful thinking.

Energy and the Environment

The Conservative government and Canada’s oil and gas industry are waiting for the election results so the Keystone XL pipeline can get the go-ahead.

Romney has described the pipeline, which would carry Alberta crude more than 2,500 kilometres south to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, as essential for weaning the U.S. off oil from pariah countries such as Iran and Venezuela. He has promised to approve it shortly after being elected.

But most expect Obama to also approve the pipeline if re-elected, particularly since Calgary-based TransCanada submitted a revised proposal several weeks ago, which is expected to address the initial environmental concerns.

Still, the two men have laid out very different approaches to securing U.S. energy and energy security, which will have other implications for Canada.

Obama has promised to continue investing in alternative energy sources, including wind and solar, in the hopes he can make the U.S. a world leader in such technologies. This could result in less reliance on Canadian natural resources, which would affect this country’s energy industry and encourage the drive towards China and other parts of Asia.

Romney has come out strongly in favour of securing U.S. energy from oil, gas and coal, and he has rolled Canada and Mexico into his plan by repeatedly citing the importance of “North American energy independence.”

But Romney also plans to significantly increase the number of drilling permits for energy companies in the U.S., and approve offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and other parts of the Arctic. He would also move forward on shale gas extraction and support continued use of coal.

Aside from reducing Canada’s energy importance, the strategy raises concerns over the threat of oil spills off the West Coast and continued pollution from coal-fired power plants in the Mid-West.

Romney has put a premium on protecting jobs and industry when it comes to environmental issues.

He has also promised to impose a rule that any new regulations must be offset with a matching reduction in red tape so business doesn’t have to pay more — which is expected to minimize tougher new environmental rules.

Meanwhile, Obama was much more modest in his approach to environmental issues during his first term than many had expected.

Environmentalists are encouraging him to be much more active on the issue in his second term, when he won’t have to think about re-election.

The Harper government has gone out of its way to change its emission-reduction targets and rules for vehicle emissions so they are aligned with U.S. policies.

If Romney relaxes American environmental policies, the Harper government will likely do the same. Similarly, the need to keep industry on both sides of the border harmonized may result in grudging Canadian acceptance if Obama brings in tougher standards and policies.

The Personal Touch

Stephen Harper has gone out of his way to build a good working relationship with Obama since the early days of Obama’s presidency. The two are often seen talking together at high-level conferences and summits, and they have had several one-on-one meetings over the past four years.

Canada and the U.S. have historically worked closely on the world stage, and this tradition has continued under Obama.

But Harper and Romney could develop a closer personal relationship as the two are conservatives, and Romney appears to share a similar view of the world with Harper. Romney has sounded like Harper as he’s talked about strongly supporting Israel and the dangers posed by Iran, the importance of free trade in spreading democracy, and the threat of a resurgent Russia.

There is a great deal of skepticism over whether Romney’s hard words towards China and Russia will actual amount to a change in U.S. foreign policy, or whether — like Harper — he will soften his tone once in power.

A Romney presidency might not lead to changes in Canadian foreign policy, but it could mean Romney will be more amenable to a personal phone call or request for assistance from Harper than Obama.

Competition and the Border

One of the driving forces behind the Conservative government’s free-trade agenda is obtaining a competitive advantage in markets like the European Union or India where the U.S. doesn’t have a deal.

Another is to maintain a level playing field in places where the Americans have a free-trade agreement, such as South Korea and Colombia.

Obama, whose party is wary of free trade, has been slow to negotiate or sign off on deals. He has indicated he would be more aggressive on this front in the future, though that may simply be rhetoric.

Romney has forcefully committed to fast-tracking talks and concluding agreements, which could lead to more competition for Canada.

Meanwhile, U.S. and Canadian officials have been quietly working behind the scenes to ease security at the border and facilitate the flow of two-way trade following an agreement announced by Obama and Harper in December 2011.

This work has slowed with the election, but most expect it to continue whether Obama or Romney are in the White House.

lberthiaume(at)postmedia.com

Twitter:/leeberthiaume

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/how-the-u-s-presidential-election-will-impact-canada-and-it-will/feed0leeberthiaumeCanadian armoured-car maker ‘shocked’ by U.S. fraud chargeshttp://o.canada.com/news/canadian-armoured-car-maker-shocked-by-u-s-fraud-charges-2
http://o.canada.com/news/canadian-armoured-car-maker-shocked-by-u-s-fraud-charges-2#commentsSat, 21 Jul 2012 01:10:21 +0000http://o.canada.com/?p=79298]]>William Whyte once boasted in an interview with a Toronto newspaper that his armour-plated vehicles were “pretty awesome machines” and that his customers included a good friend of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

But when the Canadian man entered into a multi-million-dollar contract to supply the U.S. Defense Department with 32 armoured gun trucks to protect VIPs in Iraq, he only delivered seven — and none of them met the bullet- and blast-protecting requirements, according to a federal grand jury indictment handed down this week in Virginia.

Federal prosecutors announced late Thursday that Whyte, 67, president of Ontario-based Armet Armored Vehicles, and his company have been charged with three counts of major fraud against the United States, seven counts of wire fraud and three counts of false, fictitious and fraudulent claims.

The charges have not been proven in court and in a statement emailed to Postmedia News, Whyte, who is not in custody, said he was “shocked at the allegations against me, which I totally deny.” He also said he was prepared to meet with U.S. prosecutors.

“…shocked at the allegations against me, which I totally deny.”

John Lichtenstein, Whyte’s lawyer in Roanoke, Va., said Friday there was nothing he could say about the case.

Armet, based in King City, Ont., has been armouring vehicles for more than 30 years and has manufacturing sites in Bradford, Ont., Danville, Va., and Tangiers, Morocco, according to a detailed company profile on Industry Canada’s website, which was updated in late 2011.

The company has an “impeccable worldwide standing” and counts as its clients heads of state, diplomats, government agencies, multinational corporations, police forces and “discriminating individuals worldwide,” the profile states. Its government clients include departments in Canada, the U.S., United Arab Emirates, Europe and Russia.

Officials with Public Works and Government Services Canada said Friday they were searching to see what, if any, contracts the government may have had with Armet.

According to the indictment, the U.S. Joint Contracting Command in Baghdad awarded Armet a $4.7 million contract in April 2006 for 24 armoured gun trucks.

A few months later, a $1.5 million contract was awarded to Armet to build eight more trucks.

The vehicles were to be used to transport Iraqi VIPs through “hostile and dangerous” environments.

According to the indictment, the first 24 vehicles were to be delivered by July 31, 2006, but Armet failed to meet the deadline.

By October 2006, only four trucks had been delivered.

The following month, Armet, citing cash-flow problems, sought an advance payment of $1 million, the indictment says. The U.S. military agreed to pay the company $824,531.

But instead of using that money to build more trucks, the money was diverted for “other business and personal expenditures,” the indictment alleges.

By early 2008, the company had delivered a total of seven vehicles, six of which were accepted by the U.S. military.

There were other problems.

The contracts required that the vehicles be bulletproof and that their undercarriages be able to withstand explosions. Armet had promised that the floors of the vehicles could withstand various assaults, including blasts from two U.S. M67 anti-personnel grenades.

But none of the trucks delivered met the required specifications, according to the indictment.

The vehicles were also supposed to be equipped with special tires that could withstand punctures. The first five vehicles did not have such tires.

“(The defendants) knew that all of the armoured gun trucks they had provided were defective and would not protect the officials that they were intended to protect,” the indictment states.

The U.S. military ended its contracts with Armet in March 2008.

On Friday, Armet’s website, www.aavi.com, redirected visitors to the website of another company, Terradyne Armored Vehicles, based in Newmarket, Ont.

In an emailed statement, Terradyne president Durward Smith said: “I can tell you that we have no affiliation with Armet nor its owner. A vehicle design was purchased from them with a temporary redirect of the website to capture any potential business as our understanding is that Armet is no longer making armoured vehicles.”

Whyte, an ex-York Regional Police officer, has a connection to an infamous heist at an armoured car company 20 years ago.

In November 1992, armed and masked robbers targeted National Armored Ltd. in Concord, Ont., and made off with more than $8 million in cash and cheques from a vault.

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/canadian-armoured-car-maker-shocked-by-u-s-fraud-charges-2/feed0Armoured trucksdougpostmediaThe story so far: Toronto Blue Jayshttp://o.canada.com/sports/the-story-so-far-toronto-blue-jays
http://o.canada.com/sports/the-story-so-far-toronto-blue-jays#commentsWed, 13 Jun 2012 01:46:22 +0000http://blogs.canada.com/?p=60387]]>We’re just a touch over the one third mark of the season, and most aspects of the team have progressed pretty much on par with my pre-season expectations.

THE OFFENCE

Normally you would see a review of the players’ individual performance thus far, but there just isn’t room for that in a blog like this. Instead we’ll look at some team statistics and overal impressions.

For the purposes of this post we’ll make the assumption that the desired end-game for the Blue Jays is playoff appearance sometime very soon. While a World Series win is the obvious goal, it may be unrealistic to expect that right away. Instead, based on the stated desires of the team’s management, we’ll analyze the Jays’ performance based on the intent to appear in the post-season. Statistical rankings are based on American League teams only..

American League Batting Stats as of June 10, 2012, organized by team WAR. Data from Fangraphs.com – full size

For those who are not comfortable with some of the more esoteric SABRmetric statistics, I’ll start off with some of the more recognizable metrics.

The team’s batting average sits at .248, ranking them 10th. That’s not a good sign, but seeing as batting average is not the be-all-and-end-all of hitting prowess, it’s not a definitively bad signal either. Texas currently leads the AL with a .282, and most of the other contenders are in the mid-.260s. On-base percentage numbers are significantly more important, but the Jays aren’t much better here – ranking 10th at .314. Usually a team needs to be in the .325 range to remain competitive.

The Jays do rank 2nd in homeruns, with 85 to the Yankees’ 92. Hitting homeruns is good (and fans sure do love seeing them), but excelling at this stat is not remotely necessary to indicate success. Scoring runs is significantly more important, and the Jays rank 3rd in this category, with 293. The team ranks 6th in both the slugging (SLG) and on-base-plus slugging (OPS), which is a very encouraging sign. Sadly, in the case of slugging, three of the team’s division rivals (Boston, New York, and Baltimore) rank above the Jays. In OPS, both Boston and New York rank above Toronto.

Getting into the more rare Sabremetric stats, we start with ISO. I like to include Isolated Power as a stat primarily because it measures some of the most exciting moments in a baseball game, extra base hits. The Jays rank 5th in the AL, at .170, and that is also encouraging, though not surprising with the high homerun total.

But as we get farther away from the generic stats, and move into the deeper parts of baseball analysis, we show why the Jays just are not the dominant team they must be to continue their hopeful rise to success.

BABIP (batting average on balls in play) numbers are down all around the league, but the Jays’ .275 mark (ranked 12th) is troubling. This means the team, when hitting a ball into play, is only successful 2 3/4 times out of 10 (should be much closer to 3 times out of 10).

Fortunately that’s the worst news for the Jays, as far as advanced statistical analysis is concerned. The team ranks 6th in wOBA, wRAA, and wRC; 5th in my favourite category, WAR; and 7th in wRC+, and WPA. Unfortunately, in all of these categories, there are two or sometimes three other AL East teams ranked higher than Toronto. This is usually Boston or New York, with the Tampa Bay sneaking in too.

THE PITCHING

American League Pitching Stats as of June 11, 2012, organized by team WAR. Data from Fangraphs.com – full size

There’s no doubt that the Jays’ pitching started off as the team’s strongest aspect. That may have softened a bit, but the club still boasts some encouraging numbers in the more analytical stats.

The Jays ranks 7th in ERA, with the Red Sox (no surprise) as the only AL East team not ranked higher. Not striking out a lot of batters ins’t particularly indicative of anything meaningful, and the Jays rank 11th in that stat. Leading the AL in walks per 9 innings, and having the worst strikeout to walk ratio, are obviously nothing about which to be proud, and the pitching staff will have to improve on that through the rest of the season. The team is also 10th in WHIP (walks plus hits, divided by innings pitched), which indicates they do allow a lot of baserunners (more on that later).

Pitcher BABIP is the first stat where the Jays start to look decent, ranking 2nd, only behind the White Sox at .271. Only the New York has a better left-on-base percentage (LOB%), and the Jays sit at 75.5%. This number is about 3-5% higher than historical averages and goes to show that their inflated WHIP numbers might not be that serious.

Numbers for both FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) and xFIP (Expected) do not engender any confidence. The team is dead-last in the former (at 4.68) and 10th in the latter (4.25). This is the mark of what the team’s ERA ought to look like based on performance on balls in play being at the league average (FIP), and then a regression of that stat which more accurately diagnoses homerun susceptibility (xFIP). Historical league average is around 4.00 for both stats.

Given that the FIP/xFIP numbers are so low, it should come as no surprise that the Jays rank last in the league in tERA, the stat that attempts to show a team’s true runs allowed. It’s similar to FIP/xFIP, but does take into account what kind of balls in play a pitcher allows (ground balls being better than fly balls).

Last, but certainly not least is WAR or Wins Above Replacement. The calculation for this is probably closer to magic than something I can easily explain here (just kidding). The pitching staff isn’t knocking the lights out in this category either, and rank 13th, only beating out the lowly Minnesota Twins. This WAR stat seeks to ask how much value the team would lose if they had to remove their entire pitching staff and replace them with “fictional” AAAA or bench players. A pitching WAR of 2.3 indicates the Jays wouldn’t lose much.

THE DEFENCE

There are not a lot of meaningful defensive stats in baseball, so I won’t provide a chart for this section. However, I should point out that defensive runs saved, or DRS, is probably the Jays’ strongest suit thus far. They easily rank first, at 58, the next closest being the Red Sox at 35. League median is around 5, and the Yankees have the lowest DRS at -20.

The Jays are middle of the pack in ultimate zone rating (UZR), but do thankfully carry a plus rating of 4.4. It’s a little early to put too much stock in any of these stats, and when the TZL (total zone location) and FSR (fan scouting report) information comes in we will know more.

WRAP-UP

So where are the Blue Jays so far?

They rank in the top half of the league in a lot of offensive categories, but it’s not much help when their competitors for a playoff spot in the American League are generally doing better. If the on-base percentage numbers do not improve there is no hope for this team this year.

Some of the pitching stats are downright scary, but others are encouraging. Keeping runners on base, and getting outs when balls are batted into play are important, but allowing runners on-base (especially so many walks) is inherently dangerous. Keep a close eye on the xFIP numbers to see if this staff can improve.

The Jays play the defensive shift very often, carefully studying the spray charts of their opponents and setting up accordingly. This is why you see players where you wouldn’t likely expect, though perhaps not as much as their division rivals, the Tampa Bay Rays. It’s encouraging news, but defence cannot win you games…it simply helps to keep you in the game.

In short this team needs to improve its run differential in comparison to their division opponents. Looking back over the history of baseball, the ability to score many runs, and allow as few as possible, is the hallmark of all successful teams. It seems stupid and obvious to say it, but it is nonetheless true and bears repeating.

Take Our Poll]]>http://o.canada.com/sports/the-story-so-far-toronto-blue-jays/feed0jayschrismelitoScreen Shot 2012-06-11 at 4.07.15 PMScreen Shot 2012-06-12 at 8.10.23 PMDepartment of National Defence admits cuts at Royal Military College, sort ofhttp://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/foreign-affairs-and-defence/department-of-national-dfence-admits-cuts-at-royal-military-college-sort-of
http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/foreign-affairs-and-defence/department-of-national-dfence-admits-cuts-at-royal-military-college-sort-of#commentsMon, 16 Apr 2012 23:02:02 +0000http://blogs.canada.com/2012/04/16/department-of-dational-dfence-admits-cuts-at-royal-military-college-sort-of/]]>My colleague, Jeff Davis, offers the following comment on DND and public service cuts:

It may be 10 days behind the news cycle, but the Department of National Defence is finally owning up to its plans to make cuts at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston, Ont.

I chased down the details of DND’s plan to eliminate one-third of RMC faculty, after initial reports from colleague David Pugliese. The RMC’s faculty union openly provided details of the budget-trimming plan, but getting the official line from the department proved impossible.

In the end, the story ran without confirmation or commentary from officialdom: “Neither the Royal Military College, the Department of National Defence nor Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office would confirm the plan to cut faculty.” Here’s a link to the story: http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=6418580

Finally, after 10 days of asking, this arrived in my inbox from DND:

Jeff,

Currently, the RMCC delivers an array of programs in both official languages, resulting in very high staff-to-student ratios. Reducing the array of courses will achieve higher average class sizes, and overall better utilization of resources. While no departments will be eliminated, this will necessitate a close examination of the content and delivery of the academic program with a view to modifying the degree options, reducing the number of available electives and increasing some class sizes. All retained programmes will continue to be available in both official languages.

Further, by refocusing academic programs to reflect core military requirements, the RMCC will achieve a better utilization of resources against its respective mandate. These changes will result in significant civilian personnel salary savings and the reduction of a number of positions over the next three years.

The DND/CF leadership are meeting with affected personnel to inform them of decisions and help establish what options are available to them. In the coming months, the DND/CF will take every measure to ease the impact of these divestments on affected employees. Until we have met with all affected employees, it would be inappropriate to speculate on or provide specific numbers for regions, bases or wings.-Christian Tessier

So there you have it, in standard bureaucratese: The RMC cuts will focus on civilian profs, class sizes will increase, and the number of course options will be reduced. – Jeff Davis

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/foreign-affairs-and-defence/department-of-national-dfence-admits-cuts-at-royal-military-college-sort-of/feed0christinaspencrMP Christmas cards — here they arehttp://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/mp-christmas-cards-here-they-are
http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/mp-christmas-cards-here-they-are#commentsThu, 08 Dec 2011 20:38:27 +0000http://blogs.canada.com/?p=26113]]>Tis the season when media get lots of Christmas cards from politicians — well, some of the members of Parliament anyway. Everyone has their own style, and that can be seen by this year’s selection. Here’s a sampling of what we’ve seen so far.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay and his Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak spoke at a press conference at National Defence Headquarters on Wednesday. In order to get into the room, reporters had to register online, then show up at a side entrance, get a badge and then get escorted to a special room on the extreme outskirts of the ominous 1970s-style building.

All normal up till now. The ministers appeared almost on time (a rarity in political circles) and gave some opening statements about how great relations are about the two countries. Global National TV correspondent Shirlee Engel asked the first question, the two ministers responded.

And this is where it gets weird.

The second question came from a bespectacled gentleman who identified himself as Christopher Aikenhead (not sure of the spelling), a public servant at the Department of National Defence. He was asked to repeat his name and affiliation. Same deal. Then he goes on to ask Ehud Barak a question:

“Canada and the entire world appreciate Israel’s efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I’m wondering more broadly what can Israel do, what steps can Israel take to promote a nuclear-free Middle East?”

Barak refused to answer the question, saying Israel’s position was well-known and this wasn’t the time to talk about it.

Aikenhead then turned to MacKay:

Mr. MacKay, how can Canada help contribute to Israel’s efforts to contribute to a nuclear-free Middle East?

MacKay went on to talk about the importance of dialogue between Canada and Israel and Canadian support for Middle East peace.

At the time, reporters were looking at each other wondering if DND had planted this guy in an attempt to throw a lob-ball question at the ministers. The timing just seemed too conspicuous (the Israeli defence minister) and access in NDHQ is notoriously tight.

But from the reactions of the press conference organizers, who at first seemed puzzled and then were clearly angered, it seemed evident this wasn’t a set-up. The speed with which Mr. Aikenhead was whisked away (perhaps from the building?) also seemed to confirm he was not welcome to participate.

All of that aside, one must look at the questions to realize Aikenhead was asking some pretty good ones. Critics of Israel have continually called it hypocritical for demanding Iran and other states in the Middle East not possess nuclear weapons while it possesses a not-so-secret nuclear arsenal. They say in order for the Middle East to be truly nuclear-free, Israel must get rid of its weapons just as Iran must not try to attain such weapons.

It’s clear from Barak’s answer that he understood the question and he felt uncomfortable discussing the issue.

As for what would happen to Aikenhead, officials in MacKay’s office weren’t saying…

]]>http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/foreign-affairs-and-defence/civil-servant-busts-into-israel-defence-minister-presser/feed2leeberthiaume450px-Ehud_Barak_at_Pentagon,_11-2009Shipbuilding contracts finally surfacehttp://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/shipbuilding-contracts-finally-surface
http://o.canada.com/news/politics-and-the-nation/parliament/shipbuilding-contracts-finally-surface#commentsWed, 19 Oct 2011 20:20:30 +0000http://blogs.canada.com/?p=21276]]>OTTAWA – The Canadian government’s multi-billion-dollar shipbuilding contracts are going to one west-coast and one east-coast shipyard, leaving out a Quebec bidder for the process.

A contract for combat ships will go to The Halifax Shipyard, owned by Irving Shipbuilding. The contract for non-combat vessels will go to the Vancouver Shipyard owned by Seaspan Marine Corp.

Senior bureaucrats kept a roomful of reporters in suspense for several minutes, with a lengthy explanation of how they reached their decision, before finally making details available a few minutes ago.

The government has been at pains to insist the selection process was not political. Bureaucrats even invited a “fairness monitor” to comment on the fairness of the process to reporters waiting to hear the contract details.

But shut out of the final awards was the Davie Shipyard, of Levis, Quebec.

Earlier in the day, the federal New Democrats said the three Canadian cities bidding for two multibillion dollar federal shipbuilding contracts should all be able to benefit from the deals.
“There’s enough work for all three shipbuilding places and companies,” said the NDP’s interim leader, Nycole Turmel, after the weekly party caucus.
“So that’s what we have said all along, that the government should look at sharing or making sure there’s jobs for everybody in Canada. This is a big contract, so they should make sure that everybody has work, in Canada.”
Public Works and Government Services unveiled the details this afternoon regarding the contracts, worth about $33 billion for the navy and Coast Guard, including warships as well as supply vessels and other non-combat craft.
Three cities, Halifax, Levis, on the south shore of Quebec City, and Vancouver were in the bidding for the two contracts.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the contracts would “create upwards of 15,000 jobs right across the country.”
He added: “This is about rebuilding our navy, our coast guard…it’s going to be a huge injection into the economy, and it’s going to be done in a way that is depoliticized and fair and inclusive for all regions.”
The government has said the selection process was independently done – at arm’s length from the elected politicians.
Liberal leader Bob Rae said Wednesday there are lots of things that can happen afterwards in terms of subcontracts.
“The reality of building a ship is that the insides, electronic systems and all the other aspects of it are not confined to one region or another. They often take place across the country, and indeed in some instances around the world.”
Meanwhile, Turmel said she was skeptical about whether the decision would be free from any political interference.
“We know the way this government works,” she said. “Everything is political. So right now, I would have trouble believing there wasn’t politics in this contract award. But for this, we’ll let Mr. Harper answer this question, and we’ll see.”

-Files from my colleagues Lee Berthiaume, Marianne White and Mike De Souza. You’ll find more on the canada.com main page.

The NDP’s defence critic was forced to apologize in the House of Commons Monday for attributing a quote by Liberal MP John McKay to Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
Jack Harris was called on a point of order by the defence minister after question period because Harris said MacKay told the Halifax Chronicle-Herald that, “Military accounting is like military intelligence, it is oxymoronic.”

MacKay, the minister

The problem with Harris’s assertion was that it was not Peter “Emm-Ay-Cee” MacKay questioning the value of figures released by the department of defence, it was Liberal John “Emm-Cee” McKay.
Harris was attempting to grill MacKay over his use of a search-and-rescue Cormorant helicopter to get from a Newfoundland fishing trip to Gander airport so he could fly to London, Ont. for a funding announcement.
Harris accused MacKay of losing faith in the military, after (mis)quoting the article.
“Why is the minister of defence insulting military professionals and their work, and when did the minister loose confidence in the Canadian forces?” Harris said in the House.
After question period came to a close Mackay rose to demand an apology from his NDP opponent.
Harris was game. “Mr. Speaker if the member was misquoted by me, I certainly apologize and take it back,” he said in response.

McKay, the Liberal MP

]]>http://o.canada.com/uncategorized/case-real-mackay/feed0christinaspencrScreen shot 2011-09-26 at 4.06.23 PMScreen shot 2011-09-26 at 4.07.08 PMPR blitz for “royal” reinstatementhttp://o.canada.com/uncategorized/pr-blitz-royal-reinstatement
http://o.canada.com/uncategorized/pr-blitz-royal-reinstatement#commentsTue, 16 Aug 2011 16:59:40 +0000http://politics.canada.com/?p=5982]]>It was almost impossible to miss. Conservative ministers and MPs descended on military bases across the country on Tuesday to announce that the air force and navy would once again be “royal.”

In Halifax, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said it was a mistake to take away the traditional title, an “important part of our history,”

The Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Army were merged into one body in 1968 and became known as the Canadian Armed Forces (here is a backgrounder from DND that provides some details).

Before the name change announced Tuesday, the navy was known as the Maritime Command, and the air force as Air Command. The army, currently known as Land Force Command, is expected to be renamed the Canadian Army.

While MacKay was in Halifax, four of his Conservative colleagues were spread across the country making the same announcement:

Stephen Blaney, veterans affairs minister and MP for Levis-Bellechasse, was at CFB Valcartier in Quebec.

Julian Fantino, associate minister of National Defence and MP for Vaughan, Ont., was in Victoria.

The switch was applauded by the Naval Officers Association of Canada, whose president said he “firmly supports” the restoration of the naval force’s name.

“I am certain my fellow shipmates … along with my Air Force and Army friends, are pleased with this decision to restore the identities of the (Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army,” said Rear Admiral Kenneth Summer.

“For the navy in particular, this restoration will complement the ongoing connection to the Sovereign.”

The assistance comes at the request of the Jamaican government as the Jamaica Defence Force lacks helicopters suitable for such operations.

Part of the Military Training and Cooperation Program, the initiative dubbed Operational Jaguar will also involve training exercises in search and rescue.

Our government is committed to ensuring that our Canadian Forces are ready to assist our allies on the world stage, if and when the call comes,” MacKay said in a news release.

“I could not be more pleased that our men and women in uniform will be working alongside members of the Jamaica Defence Force during that country’s coming hurricane season.”

The announcement comes months after news emerged that Canada had signed agreements with Jamaica and Germany to use their military bases as permanent Canadian hubs.

Part of the Operation Support Hubs Network, the idea was to establish storage facilities on existing bases in areas to which Canadian troops may be deployed so that personnel wouldn’t have to haul around large amounts of gear every time.

Canada is said to be trying to establish a presence in up to seven countries including Senegal, South Korea, Kenya and Singapore.

Last month MacKay also announced that a deal had been struck with Kuwait which now replaces Dubai as the main logistics hub for troops involved in the war in Afghanistan.

Canada had been seeking alternative arrangements after troops were booted from Dubai at the height of a dispute with the United Arab Emirates over commercial airline landing rights.

Canada and Jamaica have a long-standing military relationship and MacKay has said the Jamaican logistics hub proved instrumental during last year’s post-earthquake humanitarian mission in Haiti.

Canada also assisted with the construction and development of the Jamaican Military Aviation School which opened in 2006 and previously worked with the Caribbean nation on counter-terrorism and naval boarding party training.

Canada may prefer NATO combat operations these days judging from its more recent engagements in Afghanistan and Libya, but every August 9 the country reflects on the contributions and sacrifices made by its peacekeepers.

“The achievements of Canadian peacekeepers are well known and respected around the world,” Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney said in a news release Tuesday.

“Our peacekeepers have made tremendous personal sacrifices to defend Canada’s interests and values, while contributing to international peace and security. These men and women have earned their honoured place in our country’s military history.”

National Peacekeepers’ Day became an official day of commemoration with the passing of Bill C-287 on June 18, 2008 though many had been marking the day previously.

According to Veterans Affairs Canada, Aug. 9 was selected because on that day back in 1974, Canada experienced its greatest loss of life in a single incident during a peacekeeping operation.

Nine Canadians were killed while serving with the United Nations Emergency Force in Egypt.

They were sent to supervise the ceasefire between Egyptian and Israeli forces and died when the plane they were traveling in was shot down by Syrian surface-to-air missiles.

Blaney said National Peacekeepers’ Day gives Canadians the chance to “express pride” in the work done by the Canadian Forces, the RCMP and other police, civilians and diplomats past and present who support peace and security operations at home and abroad.

“Their commitment has earned Canada a worldwide reputation as a country that supports and protects peace,” he said.

“Canada’s peace support missions have helped restore peace and security in areas devastated by conflict. Our peacekeepers play a vital and significant role in achieving these objectives while demonstrating compassion and courage. Our government is proud to honour them.”

According to VAC, the term “peacekeeping” entered the popular lexicon in 1956 thanks to Lester B. Pearson who first proposed the idea of sending UN peacekeepers out to deal with the crisis over the Suez Canal.

The foreign minister and soon-to-be prime minister earned the Nobel Peace Prize for his idea.

More than 110,000 Canadians are said to have served in more than 40 international peace support operations.

In the post-war era, more than 100 Canadians have died in such operations.

Another 157 Canadian soldiers have died as a result of Canada’s combat mission in Afghanistan which ended last month. About 950 Canadian soldiers remain in the country in a training capacity until 2014.

UN peacekeepers were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988 and a Peacekeeping Monument was unveiled in Ottawa in October 1992.

Memorial events are being held Tuesday in Victoria, Oshawa, Ont., Quebec City as well as Saskatoon and Battleford, Sask.

A memorial to fallen troops that used to stand at a supply base in Dubai has found a new home in Canada.

A ceremony was held Wednesday at Canadian Forces Base Trenton to repatriate the pyramid-like granite memorial which will remain on display at the 8 Wing/CFB Trenton National Air Force Museum.

“Camp Mirage, an air mobility base, was staffed overwhelmingly by Air Force personnel, many of them from this Wing,” said Chief of Air Staff Lt-Gen. Andre Deschamps.

“Those intense Air Force bonds are why I find it so appropriate that this memorial cairn, has found its permanent Canadian home here at the National Air Force Museum, at another air mobility base.”

The supply base near Dubai was used as part of Canada’s war effort in Afghanistan until late last year when troops were booted out at the height of a dispute between the Canadian government and the United Arab Emirates over commercial airline landing rights.

That said, the repatriation also comes as Canadian combat troops pull out of Kandahar and the mission transitions to Kabul where Canadian Forces will restrict their activities to mentoring Afghan forces.

The memorial bears the names of the 157 soldiers who died over the course of the Afghan mission. Preparations are underway to repatriate a similar memorial at Kandahar Airfield, but Defence Minister Peter MacKay said no final decision has been made about where it will go once it’s back in Canada.

MacKay, who was in Trenton for the ceremony, also announced some $53 million to build a new airplane hangar and a facility for the Air Cadet Glider School at the base.

The $44.2 million, 11,582 square foot hangar is being built to house the new CC-130J Hercules.

Meanwhile, the 5,000 square foot school will cost about $8.5 million and will include space for aircraft maintenance, storage and classrooms.